"One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:02 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:26 pm
Sherab wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:09 pm
This does not mean that there is no foundational layer.
Your ideas get worse by the second.

There is no foundational layer་ at all.
You have a habit of making assertions rather than arguments.

Instead of the truncated version that you are making your assertion on, this is the full version of what I said. Argue against that please.

"This does not mean that there is no foundational layer. Why? This is how I see it: because the perception where the final layer of things is not perceived is still dualistic. The foundational layer is not perceived through dualistic perception. Also, the ultimate is said to be indescribable and thus cannot be said to be a thing as understood by a dualistic mind."

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28285
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:27 am

Sherab wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:02 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:26 pm
Sherab wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:09 pm
This does not mean that there is no foundational layer.
Your ideas get worse by the second.

There is no foundational layer་ at all.
You have a habit of making assertions rather than arguments.

Instead of the truncated version that you are making your assertion on, this is the full version of what I said. Argue against that please.

"This does not mean that there is no foundational layer. Why? This is how I see it: because the perception where the final layer of things is not perceived is still dualistic. The foundational layer is not perceived through dualistic perception. Also, the ultimate is said to be indescribable and thus cannot be said to be a thing as understood by a dualistic mind."
The mere fact that you 1) assert a foundation 2) assert that it cannot be described or understood with the mind puts your views outside the pale of the Buddhadharma.

I leave you to your conceptualizations. I won't be continuing this discussion with you any longer.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:06 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:27 am
Sherab wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:02 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:26 pm


Your ideas get worse by the second.

There is no foundational layer་ at all.
You have a habit of making assertions rather than arguments.

Instead of the truncated version that you are making your assertion on, this is the full version of what I said. Argue against that please.

"This does not mean that there is no foundational layer. Why? This is how I see it: because the perception where the final layer of things is not perceived is still dualistic. The foundational layer is not perceived through dualistic perception. Also, the ultimate is said to be indescribable and thus cannot be said to be a thing as understood by a dualistic mind."
The mere fact that you 1) assert a foundation 2) assert that it cannot be described or understood with the mind puts your views outside the pale of the Buddhadharma.

I leave you to your conceptualizations. I won't be continuing this discussion with you any longer.
I gave reasons why I said that there is a foundational layer. That was not an assertion. That was an argument. You responded to my arguments with a statement without giving any support for your statement. That is called an assertion.

A foundational layer is alluded to in the Pali Canon:

Udana 8.1
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.


Udana 8.3
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]


Kevatta Sutta
"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:
Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?
Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.
Here long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"



Udana 8.1 and 8.3 are pretty clear as they are.

Kevatta Sutta needs a little explaining.
It seemed to me that the monk who put the question to the Buddha came to a stage where he could not see where the foundational elements cease to.

The Buddha told him he was asking the question wrongly. He should ask where the foundational elements have no footing. In other words, the monk was still using his dualistic senses and consciousnesses for his investigation.


Here's a note to the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta in Access to Insight:
The Buddha, knowing that there are two types of consciousness — the consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha), which is experienced in conjunction with the six sense media, and consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), which is experienced independently of the six sense media (MN 49) — is here giving Sāti the chance to identify which of the two types he has interpreted as running and wandering on. Sāti's answer shows that he is talking about the first type. The remaining discussion of consciousness throughout this sutta is thus directed at this first type. It would have been interesting to see how the Buddha would have attacked Sāti's misunderstanding had Sāti stated that he was talking about the second.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:10 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:27 am
... I won't be continuing this discussion with you any longer.
Finally, something we can agree on. :D

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:55 am

Sherab wrote:A foundational layer is alluded to in the Pali Canon:
‘The unborn and unconditioned’ is never described in terms of being a foundation. The term ‘foundation’ isn’t in the passage you quote. That is an interpretation you’re putting on it and I think it’s ultimately derived from a theistic idea.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

muni
Posts: 4530
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by muni » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:51 am

“When we will arrive” with the train of Dharma into “realization”, there will be written: ‘foundation’ with a crossed out line and another will there then appear: dharmadhatu! The end station! Timeless.
Longchenpa: The nature of the mind is luminosity.
It is just as changeless as the space of the sky.
By the rising of false conceptions, desire and so forth obscure it,
But its nature is not obscured by incidental defilements.
This nature of compassion exists eternally.
The Sugata has said that this is the "growable" gotra:
Its root is the luminosity of insight-wisdom.
Its essence is [basic] goodness, that does not have the three poisons
Edit: Ouch, East asian!

Location?
“ Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek. ”
H H Dalai Lama

"Relax." nirvana-samsara do not stray from spaciousness.

muni
Posts: 4530
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by muni » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:05 am

[The Way is] perfect like unto vast space,
With nothing wanting, nothing superfluous:
It is indeed due to making choice
That its suchness is lost sight of.

Pursue not the outer entanglements,
Dwell not in the inner void;
Be serene in the oneness of things,
And [dualism] vanishes by itself.
http://home.primusonline.com.au/peony/faith_in_mind.htm
“ Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek. ”
H H Dalai Lama

"Relax." nirvana-samsara do not stray from spaciousness.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:26 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:55 am
Sherab wrote:A foundational layer is alluded to in the Pali Canon:
‘The unborn and unconditioned’ is never described in terms of being a foundation. The term ‘foundation’ isn’t in the passage you quote. That is an interpretation you’re putting on it and I think it’s ultimately derived from a theistic idea.
Yes, 'foundation' isn't in the passage I quoted. I used foundation to denote the ground or basic layer from which all the relative layers arose as per the analysis that I described in an earlier post. It is like all other words, a mere label suited to the context. If you don't like the label 'foundation' you can choose one that is more suited to your taste as long as you understand what the label is pointing to.

The monk who posed the question in the Kevatta Sutta in all probability, did an analysis/examination similar to the one I described and came to a point where he could not see any reality from which the elements arose. But in looking at the foundational layer, the monk was still using his dualistic consciousnesses which arise in dependent on things that arose in the same layer. But there is no thing in the foundation layer as known by any dualistic mind, and so the monk could not penetrate to the foundation layer. If I remember correctly, this is similar to a Zen teaching which said something to the effect that meditation is like climbing a pole. When you reach the top of the pool, you have to 'leap' off. Further climbing does not work.

I think your own bias towards labels on the ultimate that you do not like, makes you think that I must be describing something theistic in essence. I think it also merely reflects a failure in your understanding of my position or a refusal to understand my position as some do on this forum.

And by the way, the Buddha was shockingly severe in his criticism of Sati in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:05 am

Sherab wrote:I think your own bias towards labels on the ultimate that you do not like, makes you think that I must be describing something theistic in essence.
I don't think so. There is an inconsistency in your approach which several others have tried to point out to you. But whenever they do, you respond that they don't understand you, or are not addressing your argument. But it is also possible that they have valid objections to the point you're making, which you are not seeing.
Sherab wrote: I used 'foundation' to denote the ground or basic layer from which all the relative layers arose
But that is *not* the Buddhist understanding. That's the point that is continually being made here, and one which you are failing to understand or acknowledge. So at this point, I too will bow out of this debate as we're going around in circles. (No hard feelings, as it's a difficult point and we might have to 'agree to disagree' on it.)
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:39 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:05 am
Sherab wrote:I think your own bias towards labels on the ultimate that you do not like, makes you think that I must be describing something theistic in essence.
I don't think so. There is an inconsistency in your approach which several others have tried to point out to you. But whenever they do, you respond that they don't understand you, or are not addressing your argument. But it is also possible that they have valid objections to the point you're making, which you are not seeing.
Sherab wrote: I used 'foundation' to denote the ground or basic layer from which all the relative layers arose
But that is *not* the Buddhist understanding. That's the point that is continually being made here, and one which you are failing to understand or acknowledge. So at this point, I too will bow out of this debate as we're going around in circles. (No hard feelings, as it's a difficult point and we might have to 'agree to disagree' on it.)
You said "There is an inconsistency in your approach which several others have tried to point out to you". I thought I have responded to all relevant objections raised. I am interested in what this inconsistency in my approach that you are alluding to. Educate me.

You said "that is *not* the Buddhist understanding". Who is the authority on what is Buddhist understanding and what is not Buddhist understanding? Personally, I prefer to ensure that whatever understanding I have of Buddhist teachings, they are logically and internally consistent. If the Buddha is omniscience, then his teachings must be so, i.e., logically and internally consistent.

There are two positions here in this thread:
(1) that there is an ultimate and a relative, and the relative depends on the ultimate. Which is why the ultimate is true or non-deceptive while the relative is false or deceptive;
(2) there is no ultimate, and therefore the relative is the ultimate or the ultimate is the relative.

I have shown that (2) is logically incoherent. That logical incoherence has not been refuted.

Since you disagree with me, I have to assume that your position is that of (2) and that you are comfortable with its inherent logical incoherence .... unless you have a position that is completely different from (2), and not just some variation of it. If so, then of course, we have to agree to disagree.

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Matt J » Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:41 am

I think the problem is how the two positions structure the two truths. I'm not expert, so I am ready to be corrected.

The two truths doesn't mean the same thing to everyone in every context-- it is a little slippery. Mipham distinguishes, for example, the conceptual ultimate from the non-conceptual ultimate. The conceptual ultimate is what you say, and the non-conceptual ultimate is what you actually see. So everything we're talking about it obviously the conceptual ultimate, and not what you actually experience when you remove obscurations and afflictions.

So let's take a common definition from Mipham: relative truth is appearances, and ultimate truth is emptiness. Appearances in this case is how things seem to deluded beings-- solid, fixed, enduring, with an essence, and so on. Emptiness is what appearances actually are-- not solid, not fixed, not enduring, without essence and so on. And when we are Buddhas, we will see emptiness directly. But we can know that how deluded beings see appearances is false, even without becoming a Buddha. How? Through analysis! When we analyze appearances, we discover they cannot be as they appear. Accordingly, the relative truth is false.

So what is emptiness? It is a lack. A lack of what? You can say like HHDL that it is emptiness of inherent existence--- inherent means independent, permanent, and unitary. Or you can say like Khenpo Karl that emptiness is a lack of fixed reference points. Hakuin says that true nature is no nature. Accordingly, emptiness isn't something. It is the absence of something. This is why the Mipham says that conceptually, emptiness is a non-affirming negation. You can see how this is tricky. Emptiness isn't a thing, it is a lack of thingness.

So to combine it, you can say that relative truth consists of appearances that seem solid. Ultimate truth is a lack of solidity. It isn't correct, then, to say that appearances depend on emptiness. Appearances are actually empty. And there is no emptiness apart from appearances. It is like trying to split heat and fire, or saying that fire depends on heat or heat depends on fire.

Plugging this into position #1:

That there is a lack of solidity and appearances that seem solid, and appearances that seem solid depends on the lack of solidity. No! Appearances that seem solid depend on ignorance.

Plugging into position #2:

There is no lack of solidity, and therefore appearances that seem solid is the lack of solidity or the lack of solidity is appearances that seem solid. It doesn't make sense.

You can also see that emptiness isn't some sort of substratum or foundation. In fact, emptiness is the lack of any substratum of foundation--- so that is a logical contradiction right there.

Sherab wrote:

There are two positions here in this thread:
(1) that there is an ultimate and a relative, and the relative depends on the ultimate. Which is why the ultimate is true or non-deceptive while the relative is false or deceptive;
(2) there is no ultimate, and therefore the relative is the ultimate or the ultimate is the relative.

I have shown that (2) is logically incoherent. That logical incoherence has not been refuted.

Since you disagree with me, I have to assume that your position is that of (2) and that you are comfortable with its inherent logical incoherence .... unless you have a position that is completely different from (2), and not just some variation of it. If so, then of course, we have to agree to disagree.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:51 am

Sherab wrote:I am interested in what this inconsistency in my approach that you are alluding to. Educate me.
Because you are saying that there is an existing but ineffable ultimate which is foundational. You acknowledge that it is ‘beyond thought’ but that it still ‘exists’. This is the only point at issue. It is the same point that Malcolm took issue with.

Buddhism doesn’t generally teach in terms of such a philosophical absolute or foundation or sub-stratum on which the relative is built. But it doesn’t say that such a thing doesn’t exist, either. Everything that exists, exists dependent on causes and conditions - neither non-existent nor truly existent.

Even to say that ‘ultimate truth is emptiness’ is to reify emptiness, to make out of it an object or a concept or a ‘that’. But emptiness doesn’t refer to anything other than the dependent existence of every object of perception - pretty much as the quotes in MattJ’s second and third para’s say.

So it’s not a matter of coming to finally know an ineffable absolute as it is of continually realising the dependent nature of every existent. It’s a different kind of attitude.

I went to an excellent talk at the first Science and Non-duality Conference by Tomas Sander called ‘Emptiness and joyful irony’. It was very much about realising that there is nothing to attain - that realising empintess is really much more like irony or humour than an ultimate AHA moment. His book is here. :thumbsup:
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:04 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:51 am
Sherab wrote:I am interested in what this inconsistency in my approach that you are alluding to. Educate me.
Because you are saying that there is an existing but ineffable ultimate which is foundational. You acknowledge that it is ‘beyond thought’ but that it still ‘exists’. This is the only point at issue. It is the same point that Malcolm took issue with.

Buddhism doesn’t generally teach in terms of such a philosophical absolute or foundation or sub-stratum on which the relative is built. But it doesn’t say that such a thing doesn’t exist, either. Everything that exists, exists dependent on causes and conditions - neither non-existent nor truly existent.

Even to say that ‘ultimate truth is emptiness’ is to reify emptiness, to make out of it an object or a concept or a ‘that’. But emptiness doesn’t refer to anything other than the dependent existence of every object of perception - pretty much as the quotes in MattJ’s second and third para’s say.

So it’s not a matter of coming to finally know an ineffable absolute as it is of continually realising the dependent nature of every existent. It’s a different kind of attitude.

I went to an excellent talk at the first Science and Non-duality Conference by Tomas Sander called ‘Emptiness and joyful irony’. It was very much about realising that there is nothing to attain - that realising empintess is really much more like irony or humour than an ultimate AHA moment. His book is here. :thumbsup:
My position is that there is a foundational layer. What it actually is cannot be described, and that includes how it exists or not exist. The closest analogy I can think of is demonstrated in the two slit experiment that began quantum physics. Between the generation of the electron and its detection on the screen, physicists are unable to say (as of now) whether the electron actually exists or not, let alone how it exists - as a wave or a particle or both.

I am using words that are only relevant to the relative world that we are in to point to something that unenlightened beings have never experienced or known. Which means that when you read them you have to be wary that you are not imputing meaning relevant only in the relative to what cannot be described. In brief, the words "ultimate", "foundational layer" are mere pointers and are meant to be treated only as such. If you read beyond that, then you have not understood me.

You also said "You acknowledge that it is ‘beyond thought’ but that it still ‘exists’. This is the only point at issue. It is the same point that Malcolm took issue with." As regards the the only point at issue is that it still 'exists', I disagree. There is still the issue of logical incoherence in the position that the ultimate truth is conventional truth (based on Malcolm's very own statements.) So resolving the issue of 'exists', does not resolve the issue of logical incoherence if you accept that the ultimate truth is conventional truth, a position that is equivalent to saying that there is no foundational layer.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:48 pm

Sherab wrote: What it actually is cannot be described, and that includes how it exists or not exist.
But there's your incoherence in a nutshell! The subject of the indefinite article, 'it', in this sentence, can't be described, and can't be said to exist nor not exist. So - what are you actually talking about? What is 'it'? This is very much the same criticism that the Buddha directed at the Brahmins - they too posit an 'unknowable supreme such and such' - but they can never say what it is! (Exactly as per this post.)
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:50 pm

Matt J wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:41 am
I think the problem is how the two positions structure the two truths. I'm not expert, so I am ready to be corrected.

The two truths doesn't mean the same thing to everyone in every context-- it is a little slippery. Mipham distinguishes, for example, the conceptual ultimate from the non-conceptual ultimate. The conceptual ultimate is what you say, and the non-conceptual ultimate is what you actually see. So everything we're talking about it obviously the conceptual ultimate, and not what you actually experience when you remove obscurations and afflictions.

So let's take a common definition from Mipham: relative truth is appearances, and ultimate truth is emptiness. Appearances in this case is how things seem to deluded beings-- solid, fixed, enduring, with an essence, and so on. Emptiness is what appearances actually are-- not solid, not fixed, not enduring, without essence and so on. And when we are Buddhas, we will see emptiness directly. But we can know that how deluded beings see appearances is false, even without becoming a Buddha. How? Through analysis! When we analyze appearances, we discover they cannot be as they appear. Accordingly, the relative truth is false.

So what is emptiness? It is a lack. A lack of what? You can say like HHDL that it is emptiness of inherent existence--- inherent means independent, permanent, and unitary. Or you can say like Khenpo Karl that emptiness is a lack of fixed reference points. Hakuin says that true nature is no nature. Accordingly, emptiness isn't something. It is the absence of something. This is why the Mipham says that conceptually, emptiness is a non-affirming negation. You can see how this is tricky. Emptiness isn't a thing, it is a lack of thingness.

So to combine it, you can say that relative truth consists of appearances that seem solid. Ultimate truth is a lack of solidity. It isn't correct, then, to say that appearances depend on emptiness. Appearances are actually empty. And there is no emptiness apart from appearances. It is like trying to split heat and fire, or saying that fire depends on heat or heat depends on fire.

Plugging this into position #1:

That there is a lack of solidity and appearances that seem solid, and appearances that seem solid depends on the lack of solidity. No! Appearances that seem solid depend on ignorance.

Plugging into position #2:

There is no lack of solidity, and therefore appearances that seem solid is the lack of solidity or the lack of solidity is appearances that seem solid. It doesn't make sense.

You can also see that emptiness isn't some sort of substratum or foundation. In fact, emptiness is the lack of any substratum of foundation--- so that is a logical contradiction right there.

Sherab wrote:

There are two positions here in this thread:
(1) that there is an ultimate and a relative, and the relative depends on the ultimate. Which is why the ultimate is true or non-deceptive while the relative is false or deceptive;
(2) there is no ultimate, and therefore the relative is the ultimate or the ultimate is the relative.

I have shown that (2) is logically incoherent. That logical incoherence has not been refuted.

Since you disagree with me, I have to assume that your position is that of (2) and that you are comfortable with its inherent logical incoherence .... unless you have a position that is completely different from (2), and not just some variation of it. If so, then of course, we have to agree to disagree.
No, the problem is actually this problem of position 2: (you should be able to find two instances (I think) in this thread where I made the argument.)

Statement 1: "ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth"
Statement 2: "An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative (i.e. conventional) truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity. "

Logical representation of the statements:
Statement 1: U = C, where U = ultimate truth and C = conventional truth
Statement 2: U = V, C = not V, where V = veridical perception of a given entity.
Substituting 2 into 1: V = not V, which is incoherent.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:51 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:48 pm
Sherab wrote: What it actually is cannot be described, and that includes how it exists or not exist.
But there's your incoherence in a nutshell! The subject of the indefinite article, 'it', in this sentence, can't be described, and can't be said to exist nor not exist. So - what are you actually talking about? What is 'it'? This is very much the same criticism that the Buddha directed at the Brahmins - they too posit an 'unknowable supreme such and such' - but they can never say what it is! (Exactly as per this post.)
I never said it was unknowable. I only said it was indescribable. As I understand it, the ultimate can be known, just not by a dualistic mind. What is known by a non-dualistic mind cannot be described to dualistic minds because there is no shared experience of the ultimate.


Do note that the Buddha himself said in the Samdhinirmocana that

"the ultimate is inexpressible"
"the ultimate is devoid of conventions."

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Matt J » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:58 am

Language is not quite as susceptible to formal logic, especially English. I think combining statement #1 and statement #2 is a category error.

Consider the following statements:

1. A "pipe" is just an English word.

2. A "pipe" is a wooden tube with a bowl at the end used to smoke tobacco.

Therefore, something which is just an English word is a wooden tube with a bowl at the end used to smoke tobacco. Obviously, one cannot smoke tobacco with the English word "pipe".

Similarly, your statement #1 is referring to the limits of conception. Ultimate truth is just a concept. On the other hand, as a concept, it refers to the veridical perception. The term "ultimate truth" is being used in two different ways, so it doesn't make sense to combine them.

Image
Sherab wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:50 pm

No, the problem is actually this problem of position 2: (you should be able to find two instances (I think) in this thread where I made the argument.)

Statement 1: "ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth"
Statement 2: "An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative (i.e. conventional) truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity. "

Logical representation of the statements:
Statement 1: U = C, where U = ultimate truth and C = conventional truth
Statement 2: U = V, C = not V, where V = veridical perception of a given entity.
Substituting 2 into 1: V = not V, which is incoherent.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28285
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:24 am

Matt J wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:58 am
Language is not quite as susceptible to formal logic, especially English. I think combining statement #1 and statement #2 is a category error.
I have tried to explain this several times, but he doesn't listen.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Ogyen
Posts: 707
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Ogyen » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:36 am

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:38 pm
The problem with this entry is that the term "ekacitta" is not attested in the Lanka, existing nowhere in the Sanskrit text or its Tibetan translation. It appears that the term ekacitta is used by Suzuki on page 269 of his study of the Lanka, but it is not listed as term appearing in his Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan glossary.

The quasi-Vedanta use of the term in Chinese Buddhism causes a lot of problems for westerners.
Just Westerners?

Even if the term doesn't appear... Is there any input from Chinese/Tibetan translator camps?

And what are the implications of the quasi-Vedanta usage?
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive - nosce te ipsum

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Wayfarer » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:58 am

Ogyen wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:36 am
And what are the implications of the quasi-Vedanta usage?
There is a Buddhist term for non-dual, which is ‘advaya’. It is similar, but different, to the Hindu ‘advaita’. They’re different forms of non-dualism. And in this thread I think the distinction is being blurred. Here are some sources on the distinction between ‘Buddhist Advaya’ and ‘Hindu Advaita’. They’re pretty academic, but then it’s a pretty academic question. (Actually the fourth ref is from DharmaWheel!)
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests